In the last three decades, the once anomalous summer chamber music festival has become the most common venue for chamber music performances in the U.S. While fiscal exigency has forced regular season series in major cities to scale back or in some cases discontinue their programs, summer music festivals have sprung up and flourished in many seasonal, bucolic vacation spots, and in nearly every western ski town of note.

For the sponsors of such festivals the inducement to organize concerts is a bit different from that of a big city venue. A ski village, nearly empty in the summer is a study in underutilization that leaves housing and rehearsal space for musicians readily available. Organizers of such festivals probably view the endeavors both as relatively inexpensive attractions for off-season tourists looking for a presumably sophisticated summer retreat and as projects that create employment, community focus, and promote higher cultural values for year round locals.

However, a serious problem lies in the extent to which programming choices at summer music festivals are driven by what actually seems to attract concertgoers in those places. In nearly all cases, programming under the “summer festival paradigm” must be narrowly conscribed around what musicians call “the Dead White Guys.” In other words, only the works of European composers from Bach through Ravel are acceptable to summer festival audiences with almost no exceptions. While they are wonderful staples of the repertoire, the works of Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms and Dvorak by no means break any musical ground these days. Programming with an over-reliance on these composers propagates a myopic view of the range of possibilities of serious music. While a major city venue might present a Schoenberg retrospective program, the mere presence of the name Schoenberg on a program at a summer festival is likely to repel prospective audience members creating a box office disaster, even for so romantic a piece as Verklaerte Nacht. The presumed sophistication at summer festivals is, in reality, often blatantly pandering.

Consequently, the ubiquitous summer festival has become a double-edged sword for serious musicians: On the one hand employment for musicians in the summer is abundant and in some cases relatively lucrative as a result of the presence of summer festivals. Orchestral musicians bound to artistic servitude during the season can find a much-needed range of artistic expression when they are freed from the autocracy of a conductor during summer stints at chamber music festivals. But the entire summer festival system often seems driven by a “lowest common denominator” default in programming, hopelessly frustrating broad growth in serious artists. The summer festival program can, at times, seem as commercially driven as a winter season, symphony orchestra pops series.

The root of the problem lies in how we are educated and live today. In contemporary life, music represents something radically different than it once did: 150 years ago, before the advent of competing activities like TV and video games, audience members were themselves practitioners of the art of chamber music as a form of around-the-house entertainment. Concert attendees’ hands-on involvement in the repertoire gave them a deeper appreciation for both the repertoire itself and for the skill of the performers who played the repertoire in concert. Amateur musicians eagerly awaited the publication of new works by contemporary composers as they awaited the return of favored artists who would unveil the latest creations of master composers on their concert tours.

Today, audiences are predominantly musically illiterate and shun new music, if only because they lack fluency in the languages, and consequently cannot understand the music. A current relative lack of encouragement to those composers who might push the envelope of what is possible in music is a direct by-product of this musical illiteracy. While not confined to summer venues, the general dumbing-down of programs is in evidence most acutely at summer festivals. That those who would push the boundaries of serious music find themselves increasingly on an artistic island is deplorable. The possible solutions require that those of us who lack musical literacy make a commitment to becoming curious, and that those of us who are musically literate make a commitment to drawing audience to the innovative in music, even at summer festivals, where this is most challenging. Several ways in which meaningful change might be effected are:

Education: Musicians need to take seriously the mission of educating young people about the languages of great old, and innovative new music. Most young peoples concerts are designed to help organizations attract funding dollars that support their parent programs. This practice is profligate and should stop. Young People’s programs should be designed with the audience in mind, not the funding institutions! Bernstein’s programs with the NY Philharmonic in the 1960’s did some of this to great effect. These days, conductor David Alan Miller stages some highly effective programs as well. But these are the exceptions in a world where the audience is increasingly distanced from music by digital distractions.

Tenacity and Accessibility: Performers need to stay the course and push diverse programming both at summer festivals and at regular season venues. We must generate curiosity in our audience members about what a musically literate experience by giving the audience the tools with which to comprehend the music. Lecture demonstration featuring repetition of key elements in a piece is a useful tool in drawing audience into a piece. Both by giving the audience “sound bites” to listen for and by speaking with the audience (in a language that they are fluent in) we have the chance to show the uninitiated what is exciting to us in music.

Risk Taking: Presenters and performers need to embrace the risk involved with educating the audience even at summer festivals, by programming a balanced diet of old and new, and by pushing performers to connect with audience through lectures and pre and post concert dialogue.

Selective Innovative Marketing: Pandering should be confined to style and marketing. Programming should be aesthetically as opposed to market driven. The Kronos Quartet is an excellent example of a group that promotes an image that allows them to “sell” new music.

Audience Challenge: Concertgoers need to embrace the value of becoming educated and gaining aural fluency in a range of musical languages. Audiences should become proactive self educators.

If, as artists, we fail to address ourselves to these issues we will find ourselves increasingly marooned, speaking a language unknown to most. Our musical diet will be generally limited to a hopelessly narrow tract of repertoire. If as listeners we remain complacent, steer away from the challenge inherent in learning new languages, and fail to promote artistic evolution, innovation will stagnate and society will lose a valuable cultural asset.

I am frequently contacted by string players needing help with tonal issues in their search for an instrument. Many string players have trouble sorting out what tonal criteria are important in the process of selecting an instrument. Problems arise most often when string players attempt to objectify issues of tone. A player’s interface with an instrument is largely a subjective matter, and as such it is best dealt with using subjective criteria.

One client wrote:

I like a wide, sweet sound which also cuts through. It seems that fast notes sound clearer on some violins, while they sound fuzzy on others. If that is dependent on the violin, then I obviously would prefer a violin that easily sounds clear. My testing procedure so far has involved this:

Playing a high F sharp and surrounding notes at different dynamics. All notes should sound powerful and even.

Playing fast scales in first position, checking for fuzziness in between the notes.

First few notes of the second movement of Brahms’ third sonata. It should feel and sound very wide, fat, settled, comfortable.

Loud heavy notes at the frog and across the range of the G string. The violin should sound loud and even a bit edgy, not ‘crushed.’

This client has missed the boat. Violins, like people, each have unique attributes and drawbacks that must be factored into the development of a relationship with the instrument. As an analogy consider that some people go about the process of identifying a romantic match by subjecting every potential mate to a rigid and extensive set of criteria. Any potential mate is cast aside who does not conform. Usually this strict culling process results in a sample of zero. When considering people who sift the sample of potential mates in this way, but complain about a lack of success with the search, one wonders if they really want to find a realistic match, or are actually just not quite ready to settle down. If they do happen to find someone that strictly meets all of the criteria, there may be no chemistry between them after all, and in any case they will have missed the chance to learn about themselves from having had to adapt to another.

Similarly, musicians operating this way in the selection of a string instrument, could easily be missing the opportunity to learn about their own playing, through learning how to extract the best out of any instrument, and to adapt to many different instruments. A more subjective and adaptive approach to a search will often actually cause players to modify their criteria and substantially improve their playing.

Specifically, I recommend that players abandon any so-called “objective” testing procedure altogether, in favor of the method detailed below, which I developed for myself, based on my years of experience playing on many different instruments:

With each new instrument just practice as you normally would, exploring what changes you must make in your playing to find your voice on the instrument. In effect see how quickly you can FORGET what you are playing on and feel comfortable in the playing itself.

Don’t look to isolate problems with the instrument; rather, try to find what works well for you with the instrument and what gives you trouble. After a while you will have a sense of the balance between attributes and drawbacks with the instrument as you relate to it. Over time you should be able to intuitively adapt to the instrument. If, after a couple of hours of scales and normal practice you are frustrated, the violin may be in poor adjustment (a frequent problem), or the violin may simply not be for you.

If you try violins in this manner from a major shop where most things are set up well, and the available inventory is excellent and plentiful, and you come up with no instruments that you can feel comfortable playing on, you should work on your ability to adapt to different instruments before setting out to find a violin to purchase.

Once an instrument has passed the personal test and you have become nominally comfortable with your own voice on it, the most important part of the process can start. Play in ensemble with people to see how it feels to actually make music with others while playing on the instrument.

Play in the settings for which you will actually use the instrument. If you are not a touring soloist, you don’t need to have a violin that will project well for the Brahms Concerto. If you mostly play in orchestra, definitely try the violin in orchestra to be sure that you are comfortable and can hear yourself and your colleagues when playing in this setting. For me the sonata and chamber music test is the most important one as I normally play in these settings. I want to feel good touching my colleagues’ sounds with my sound, on whatever instrument I am playing.

Avoid taking too much advice from others about how you sound on an instrument. Do not be too comfortable with anyone deciding for you what your voice should sound like. The main things you need to know about the tone of an instrument are:

Do you feel comfortable in your voice and able to sing on the instrument?

Can you be heard by others to the extent you need to be in the contexts in which you will use the instrument?

All other issues or concerns are irrelevant to the process of establishing your tonal connection with an instrument and dialogue around such issues is to be avoided.

Juan Gris ViolinMuch has been written in Soundpost Online about the realities of shopping for fine string instruments. One of the main problems with buying a valuable string instrument is the difficulty one faces in reselling them.

Obviously anyone in possession of a fine string instrument for sale needs to develop a de-acquisition strategy, but would-be buyers of expensive string instruments would also do well to develop an understanding of the realities of reselling what they will buy.

A valuable art object like a violin is a vexing problem for an estate: expensive string instruments are frightfully difficult to sell, and reliable information about string instruments and the market and prices for them is difficult to gather for those outside of the trade. This also should be fully considered by potential purchasers as an offset to the potential benefit of a long-term holding strategy.

Part I: Private Sales

So how does one go about de-acquisitioning a fine violin? In theory, by avoiding a dealer commission, a direct private sale should net a seller the highest price. The realities of private transactions are often at odds with the theory. Before considering the private sale avenue, retail vendors need a realistic view of the problems inherent in marketing string instruments privately:

Authenticity and Consumer Confidence

There are many more string-instrument dealers than universally credible experts in the trade. Expertise is a fluid topic with revelations about instruments and makers sometimes exerting a radical effect on values. Many horror stories circulate about problems of expertise having wiped out perceived equity with various string instruments. Retail consumers hear these stories from colleagues and insiders in the trade or read about them on the Internet, in the course of normal research about the objects. As a result, consumer confidence is often low, and most high-end transactions in the trade fail to close without the support of a respected authority.

Pricing and the Effect of Commissions

Outsiders to the instrument trade often overlook the effect of commissions and can be confused by values assigned in appraisals. Interpretation of appraisal dovetails with the effect of commissions in important ways: A private seller often uses the most recent insurance evaluation as a basis for their perception of what they should receive in a sale of their beloved instrument. But insurance valuations typically indicate replacement price for a comparable instrument from a major dealer, not net proceeds of a sale event, and the difference between those numbers is nearly always at least 20%, and normally much more. A private seller attempting to neutralize the role of dealer in the market usually finds that most buyers who buy privately are looking for a special deal in return for the effort of identifying a private seller and absorbing the risks involved in transaction without retail vendor guarantees, and service.

Market Access

The string instrument market is extremely narrow and specialized. For a consumer with one or two objects to sell, finding a match with a prospective buyer is something akin to looking for a needle in a haystack. By contrast a dealer has a long-cultivated access to the market through advertising and reputation, and the drawing power of a varied inventory on offer along with the credibility to inspire consumer confidence. Further a dealer will work hard to protect their investment in market access.

Adjustment and Restoration

Antique String instruments are sensitive tools that require periodic, expert restorations, and tonal adjustment to perform well. The effect of adjustment and set-up on a fine instrument can be profound. A poorly maintained or poorly set up instrument may be unusable as a tool. The same instrument may become a glamorous match for a musician once it is put into proper adjustment. The best restorers and adjusters are rare and are usually either in the trade as dealers themselves, or they work for major dealers. As trade insiders, or employees of insiders, fine restorers have a vested interest in using their best effort for inventory that will generate a commission for the firm for whom they work.

Market Saturation and Word of Mouth Communication

A private seller runs certain risks in marketing their instrument without the help of a dealer. If an instrument is marketed with an inadequate set-up it may produce a negative reaction in a potential buyer who will have then dismissed the instrument, and will not reconsider the piece, even if they might have had a totally different reaction, if the instrument had been better set-up in the first place. An instrument marketed privately, that fails to sell, may be difficult for a dealer to successfully offer, if the price must change in the remarketing effort. Finally a private seller may find a sale hard to achieve simply because of the scarcity of potential buyers in the market at any given time.

Summary of Part 1

The conflict between the price objectives of private sellers and those of private buyers is a potential obstacle to private sales with fine string instruments.

Market access is difficult to achieve and closely guarded by the dealers.

Instruments require serious restoration, set-up and adjustment work to function well and restorers under the employ of dealers are not likely to help a retail seller bring an instrument to top playable condition without a consignment arrangement in place.

Due to all of these factors, private transactions, while not unheard of, are rare in the string instrument market. If you own an instrument and do want to try access the market directly, one strategy is to contact the best-known teachers and members of a symphony orchestra in your area. Several important marketing tips:

Legal tangles in the world of fine string instruments are to be avoided. Be certain that you have done the reasonable research in determining that your instrument is authentic in the eyes of the best world experts. Be sure that someone credible can establish for you that your instrument free of critical hidden flaws that could have effect on the value. Failure to accurately represent your instrument in a transaction could leave you legally liable for a claim of negligent misrepresentation, even if you were unaware of the problem yourself.

It will be necessary to lend your instrument out on trial and you should be sure that you are insured against loss or damage.

Give a prospective buyer no more than two weeks to decide on your instrument. It normally takes less time than that for a buyer to decide, and a transaction that takes more time than two weeks is likely to fail. Best to move on and show the instrument to the next prospective buyer. Even if you don’t have the next prospective buyer lined up, do not allow the instrument to languish with the potential buyer who will not buy it: nothing good can come of this.

Do not negotiate on your price until you are being given a bona-fide, firm offer with all terms of payment being specified up front. In a pre-offer negotiation, you achieve no real progress toward your sales and price goal, but instead create a lower market price with a new negotiating ceiling.

Intonation is a vexing problem for string players. In fact it is so much so that often one of the distinctions between the most sought-after string performers and ensembles from their professional colleagues less in demand is the quality and consistency of their intonation. The notion of “in tune” as a goal, however laudable, is simplistic. In order to achieve satisfying and consistent-sounding intonation, it is critical to have a concept for tuning, based on certain acoustical realities, and based on the context in which you are working.

Any discussion of intonation in the modern era begins with an understanding of the system of equal temperament. With equal temperament, by adjusting every interval to the same degree in the scale, two problems of tuning chords are dealt with via compromise: octave displacement, and the effect of the qualities of different intervals of the triad in different keys. In the equal-tempered system, music sounds relatively in tune (or out of tune) to the same degree in every key. A keyboard tuned to equal temperament frees a composer to write pieces containing any and every possible modulation. Because of this advantage, equal temperament has become the most universally used tuning system for keyboard instruments. J. S. Bach was one of the first musicians and composers to fully exploit the virtues of the system of equal temperament. The great keyboard sonatas of the classical and romantic eras, and most of the repertoire written in the years since would have been impossible without the equal-tempered system. In the modern era, the equal tempered system also provides a convenient base line for tuning all non-keyboard instruments in a manner that requires no specific knowledge of the harmonic context of a situation. Modern orchestras typically conceive of tuning in equal temperament. Electronic tuning machines generally use equal temperament as their default setting partly for this reason.

However practical it may be as a compromise, for non-fixed-pitch instruments, equal temperament is not a means to the most beautiful or satisfying intonation in either harmonic or melodic contexts. There are situations where equal temperament makes sense for non-fixed-pitch instruments. In the modern orchestra, for instance, any large deviance from equal temperament can leave a player sounding less unified with the group. There are situations in chamber music settings as well, where equal temperament is the most exigent solution to a conflict of acoustical and technical realities.

In certain repertoire, even with fixed-pitch (keyboard and fretted) instruments, there are tuning choices to consider besides equal temperament, depending on the degree to which a piece modulates, and depending on the actual keys to which the piece modulates. Early music practitioners, especially keyboard players, must incorporate an understanding of temperament as essential among the tools they bring to the problems of performance. There are thousands of possible temperaments for tuning, and at various points in history, prior to the widespread adoption of equal temperament as a universal tuning system, various temperaments have informed composers and vice-versa.

The best non fixed-pitch instrumental performers invariably employ intonation based on the harmonic, melodic, and instrumental contexts in which they are playing, even if they don’t always know they are doing so. When playing with piano, string players are most often relegated to a modified version of equal temperament. In some instances we can cheat and deviate from the temperament of the piano, but many times such deviance will leave a string player sounding out of tune with the piano. Other than the instrumental context of playing with piano, there are two other common contexts that present tuning problems: octave displacement and harmonic-versus-melodic. String players need to consider these problems, both intellectually and intuitively in order to develop satisfying and consistent style of intonation.

To understand octave displacement one need only experiment at the keyboard. In the upper-most octave of the piano, sound one single note. Then play the same pitch in the lowest octave. If the piano is well in tune, the notes will sound too close together when played separately, and too far apart when played together. In other words, when played separately the upper note sounds sharp and the lower note flat. When played together just the opposite is true. This is because of the inherent conflict between the overtone series that the true notes produce. In order to achieve consonance between the overtone series in the two notes, they must be pulled together. But the point at which the overtone series line up leaves the notes sounding hopelessly out of tune in any melodic context. The farther apart the octaves are, the more acute the problem. This is the reason why chords built on a wide tessitura are particularly problematic to tune. Equal temperament is a compromise system that theoretically, leaves both pitches acceptably in (or out of) tune for either context.

To understand harmonic and melodic context as it relates to tuning, one can experiment with any string instrument. Cello reveals the issues most acutely because the relationship of intervals in the lower range is broader and the pitch issues are more clearly audible. If you play an F natural on the D string of the cello against the open A string, your ear will naturally perceive the basis of an F major triad. This will cause you to place the F on the high side, in order to leave the third of the chord, in this case the open A string, sounding sweet and low, where the overtone series line up and “ring” in a major chord. That same F rendered against the open G string and perceived as a seventh in a G 7 chord will sound hopelessly sharp. A lower placement of the F will be necessary to arrive at a lined up set of overtones in this context, and achieve the ringing sound of the lowered seventh in the G 7 Chord. The same F, as the third degree in a melodic passage in D flat major, will once again sound sweeter on the high side, as long as it doesn’t have to resonate against the D-flat major triad in the same register. The reality that the third degree of the scale sounds more satisfying higher in a melodic context, and sweeter lower in a harmonic context is a problem with which all non fixed-pitch instrumentalists must contend.

Arguably, intonation in a string quartet raises some of the most problematic tuning issues in music. Modern instrumental training generally doesn’t stress an understanding of temperament, octave displacement, and harmonic and melodic contexts for tuning. This deficiency in training leaves many string players ill equipped for sorting out the issues of tuning in a string quartet. The nature of the repertoire, and the possibility of a totally blended sonority, along with the high standards continually being set by active rehearsing groups, all conspire to highlight intonation deficiencies for groups that fail to meet the highest standards. The attainment of a high standard for intonation in a string quartet is a labor intensive project. It requires that the members spend enough rehearsal time to become familiar with the harmonic role each line serves in a chord, and it demands that the members agree on a shared concept for intonation and pitch temperament in the group.

One example of a tuning problem from the string quartet repertoire is in the beginning of the second movement of Mozart’s Quartet, K. 465, marked Andante Cantabile. The movement is in F major. The opening melodic note in the first violin part is a C natural, one octave above middle C. The second violin plays an A that corresponds with the open A string. If either violinist tunes their note to their open A string, the first violin will be tempted to push the C natural high, in an attempt to achieve a ringing chord with a sweet and low third, in this case A natural. This will ultimately push the whole group sharp to their open strings and the group will lose the sympathetic ring of the open strings. The resulting blended quartet sound will have a deadened quality similar to what one experiences in keys with many flats such as D flat major. In practice there are several possible compromises that will yield a more satisfying result: In one system, both of the violinists must adjust slightly low to their sympathetic open A and E strings in the opening chord, depending upon what the group can agree sounds best. With the first violin adjusting downward slightly, the C natural will sound just a bit low to both the open E and open A strings. The second violin will also compromise, with a note that is neither as low as a “beatless” third, nor as high as the open A string. This type of adjusted temperament is just one example of the complexity involved in bringing a satisfying of intonation to a string quartet. Frequently the quickest path to resolving intonation conflicts in string quartet work is to adopt equal temperament as the goal when such problems arise.

With regard to octave displacement in a string quartet, it is necessary for the group to be mindful of the problem when tuning their individual instruments, as well as when tuning chords. Generally, the outer extremes of range need to be brought together, as in the earlier example of the piano. This will avoid one or the other end of the group having to make an extreme and odd sounding adjustment in a particularly widely spaced chord. I recommend that a group tune as follows:

First the cello should find an A that the group can all agree on. The cello should then tune the tightest possible fifths that still ring. By the time the C is tuned it should be relatively high, possibly even as measured against equal temperament.

The remaining instruments should line up their A string with the cello one at a time (using open strings, not harmonics) and then proceed to tune the tightest possible fifths.

Then the players should each check their G strings (the viola should check the C as well) against the cello’s C string and against the cello’s D string. Some adjustment of the upper players’ G strings is likely to be necessary in order to have all of the fifths line up.

By starting from the same tight temperament in the open fifths the group has the best possible chance to sound ringing and in tune in a wide range of contexts.

Authenticity is one of the more vexing issues for the string instrument trade. The consumer point of view regarding authenticity of instruments and bows is often simple: Will a highly regarded expert issue a certificate? Or even more naively, is it “papered”? But what is behind a certificate, what makes an instrument genuine, and what really are the commercial implications of these questions? The answers may surprise you.

For example, Description A—a violin of Milanese origin, 18th century, possibly by a member of the Testore family, the scroll by the hand of a later Milanese maker—has a very different significance in the marketplace than Description B—a violin by Carlo Giusseppe Testore, in an unusually pure state of preservation—but the owner in both cases might still refer to the violin as a “Testore.”In order to know what an expert’s opinion of a piece is, one must read the certificate, both literally and between the lines. The description can have profound implications for the value of the piece in question. The owner of a violin may refer to that violin as a “Testore… with a certificate from a regarded expert.” Closer scrutiny of the written opinion sometimes betrays a different point of view, with serious commercial implications.

Rare string instrument dealers of high integrity endeavor to transact business on the basis of their own expertise rather than relying on the opinions of others in the trade or rubber stamping existing papers. This is not to say that dealer/experts don’t confer. In fact quite the opposite is true. But the best dealers are true experts, and true experts try to look at each piece anew, subjecting it to the scrutiny and judgment they have honed over many years in the trade. In this way old, written opinions are frequently overturned, as instruments or bows are cast in a new light by the growing pool of new knowledge. The best experts are, from time to time, forced to re-evaluate even their own opinions from years past, sometimes with bitter economic consequences for themselves. Those potential future losses, coupled with an expert/dealer’s own integrity and interest in good customer relations is part of what keeps the best of them honest, and drives opinions to an ever-higher degree of circumspection.

Some experts have attempted to eliminate conflict-of-interest in the formation of their written opinions by removing themselves from commerce that could cloud their judgment of the subject of their expertise. That is, they do not sell the instruments they evaluate, and they do not evaluate the instruments they sell. This strategy has not worked. When a consumer is adversely affected by faulty expertise, the expert without a commercial interest in the transaction has no liability for their mistake, since after all, the certificate was only a written opinion based on their best efforts at the time the opinion was written. Merchants trading on another expert’s opinion can claim to have followed industry standards by relying on a higher opinion than their own, and thus exonerate themselves of liability in the matter.

Some dealers/experts have been unwilling to stand behind their erroneous opinions by providing trade-in items at comparable value to the piece as originally sold, even against a tide of credible contrary opinion. This practice is highly corrosive in the trade and represents the worst of all possible worlds. A written opinion is issued, a transaction occurs at a retail price, profit is made commensurate with added value of warranties and service, yet no such warranties are actually honored. When a revision to an old opinion follows a period of inflation in the trade, the loss of value for the consumer relative to the current market place can be devastating.

To cite a current case in point: New York violinist “X” purchased a violin from New York dealer “Y” some nine years ago. Dealer “Y” issued a certificate to violinist “X” at the moment of sale, describing the violin as a Gennaro Gagliano, original in all parts. The price at the time of the transaction reflected full market value for a Gennaro Gagliano, $132,000. Violinist “X” borrowed heavily to purchase the violin, and relied totally on the representations and integrity of dealer “Y.” The violin as described would have a current insurance value of $200,000-$300,000.

Recently violinist “X” became aware of controversy surrounding the purported Gagliano violin. Opinions were sought from six of the most important experts active today. No one was willing to corroborate the old opinion of dealer “Y.” Instead, the experts consulted all more or less agreed that the instrument was a composite violin of later Neapolitan origin. Insurance value for the violin with this current expertise would now be $60,000-$80,000. Despite this, dealer “Y” has remained unwilling to reasonably or effectively back up the opinion given at the time of sale. Consequently, violinist “X” has a violin with a certificate stating that the instrument is the work of Gennaro Gagliano, but the certificate is of no use as violinist “X” cannot legally or ethically represent the violin without informing would-be buyers of the conflicting opinions. The only alternatives for violinist “X” are to simply write off the loss, or to pursue expensive and emotionally draining legal action, with no certainty of a favorable outcome.

The point here is that there are two important issues to keep in mind regarding certificates:

Read the certificate carefully at the time of purchase. Be sure you understand, and agree with the vendor on exactly what it says.

The value of a certificate is only as substantial as the integrity of the dealer who wrote the opinion and sold the instrument. A purchaser would do well to choose among dealers who have shown a willingness, ability and a history of effectively backing up their previous opinions with trade-in or cash, when those opinions are challenged by a large majority of other credible experts in the trade. Ask not, “who wrote the certificate,” but rather, “what the vendor can be expected to do for you” should a problem arise in the future!